tv Today in Washington CSPAN June 14, 2011 2:00am-6:00am EDT
-- >> that is certainly something to think about. how you would do with that. -- how he would deal with that. that would be someone that is operating and build a test while operating? >> that is correct. >> isn't the person put out of service to that point but they test positive for drug and of call? >> it is a positive test after crash and is not related directly to the cdl -- t me provide language, if i may. >> one other thing on your penalty -- these are people who did not pay the $300. these are total rogues. >> it is that population that we
might have shut down, and resume operations. we have removed their authority to operate and they have resumed operations regardless. >> i think we had some consensus that that fine f those kind of people could be raised. we want to discourage those kinds ofeople. we want to focus on the people that are good and encourage them to do better. we want to get those other people out. >> look at criminal penalties and people better operatg without sufficient operating authority. the financial penalties are not enough to persuade these people that they should not be going back into business. if you had criminal penties, that increases the stakes and that may get their attention if they thought they might be going
to jail. >> we would he to think about that. the key thing is if you go criminal, we gea referral to the judiciary committee. that is bureaucratic. beyond that, the u.s. attorney's generally -- if it involves somebody to has actually had serious infractions that lead to injury or death or something, perhaps they would pursue it. normally, they would not be very interested in pursuing it. we have to qualify it and then about how we might do that. i would be open to suggestions. >> if i might mention it to other strategies. -- mention the two other strategies. the authority to regulate brokers, as long as passengers who are buying tickets, whether it is through the web or through
a site at a curbside, if there is no requirement for the brokers to disclose who they are selling tickets for, passengers continue to buy tickets blindly. furthermore, they buy tickets thinking that the seller has the connection and some responsibility for the quality of the operations. the passengers to have lost their tickets have no recourse othe than going through some state consumer protection agency. we would recommend, we have authority over the brokers of every other commercial movement. we would encourage the authority to have some level of requirements on brers of passenger tickets. >> you have a requirement over freight brokers? >> yes. >> moving, storage, those things. this is the area -- this is the only area where you do not have
that authority? i would like to see a suggestion. did these associatis have any insight into that? >> we have had a concern about brokers for a long time. they have the skin in the game. --and in the game. we have fought to ensure that consumers work directly with motor coach operators and bypass the middleman. our concern with any kind of registration would give them some level of legitimacy, which we do not believe they should have. we are sort of torn. we understand the concern with brokers. we share that concern, but we do not want to give them a level of legitimacy that would make someone feel comfortable that they are dealing with someone that is reputable.
because they are reps -- because they are "registered" -- >> the devil is always in the details. those of the kinds of brokers that we're talking about. by the same token, a lot of the industry buy and sell from each other. companies are leasing buses from each other if their capacity is full. how bad broker is to fd is a key question. -- how that brokerage is defined as a key question. >> if we are doing freight brerage, they are required to have bonding. >> that is correct. >> maybe that is something -- at least, there would be some potential recourse for people who bought tickets to a broker and that bus company -- they would have someplace to go and
file a claim. maybe something along those lines would help to some degree. any suggestions that you have regarding that would be welcomed. >> i think this has been very helpful and i think i find substantial grants -- grounds for some modest improvements that will get at the bad actors. i welcome those actions by the committee. >> he has my assurance, and we have been talking and between the testimony and looking at the provisions that we planned -- that we intend to put in that will strengthen our ability to deal with the problems that we have heard. one fatality is too many, which i said at the beginning. i've learned some things here, too, and let me clarify, the federal government now the --
all but two steps -- all but two states are recipients for those funds, is that correct? >> allstate's receive assistance. >> they are now all receiving -- alt states received assistance. >> they do not have -- they do not meet the federal standard. hide -- had a limited enforcement operation and we found that their state law was not compliant with the federal regulations. we were having a rash of truck accidents. we went back to the state legislators and they cooperated. we are providing funding, and talking about the ticket brokering, by this time somebody is buying a ticket, that is way down the pike from where all of
this problem and responsibility starts. if you are getting on a bus and it has a dot license number such and such and operator carrier # and dot has initially certified that in some way, the public does not know, members of congress do not know what that entails. but there should be some responsibility to make certain that you have the very best operators possible. not pulling the certificate after they had killed a host of people. you may ctrol the american bus association they control 60% of the buses, but one of the worst accidents occurred with one of your members who was debarred
from your membership after the accident. that is late in the games. but if we are putting federal money into state eorcement, most of the activities are now around truck and highway safety issues and we had testimony that only 12 states actuallyre taking an active interest. we heard some anecdotes about the level of operations as far as bus passenger safety enforcement. that has got to change. we are going to have to make a change there. i think we agree on that. we have to have some better assurances, both from d.o. and
further down the pike, at each level. enforcement is so important. if i have 1080 federal officials, i am never going to be able to handle what needs to be done on the road. we have to empower them to do this. the other thing, stopping the bus on the highway, you know i have great concern that some of the provisns we put were good, but we may need a different approach. on the interstate, a major highway, basked -- the la thing i want to see is bus passengers on loaded. before a passenger gets on the bus, there has to be some
assurance that it is safe. for heaven's sakes, we know that most of these operators are small operators. many are in the gaming industry. what kind of enforcement rocket science is to inspect the bus before this ever leaves the station? i mean, people know where they are leaving from or where they are departing. i have concerns about how we do this from a practical standpoint and i do not want to put more people at risk in the process. competition is important and we want to make sure that a little carrier has a shot at this too. this is not just about preservi the bottom line for major carriers. we will have to look at some innovative ways, a third-party
inspections, some way of getting more inspection for less dollars and less bureaucracy. that might be an innovative approach from washington. maybe we can do that, too. we will go back -- i want to go back a look at the recommendations. we did not get into detail, but we want to make certain that we do not give those recommendations on the shelf. in other industries and modes of transportation, we have done that in the past to make certain that there is some follow- through and compliance. when we see end -- when we see a gross error, it should not happen again. i appreciate your testimony today. this is a quickly held a hearing, but we are looking at to all of the provisions that we are trying to incorporate into a
major piece of legislation. we thought it would be fitting that we review this in a bipartisan manner and try to come up with the best possible provisions to ensure that the traveling public have every element of safety in place and that we responsibly provi for that to end our legislation to allow the agency to help do its job better. and for the states that end up with a lot of the responsibility. again, i think the witnesses. we will leave the record open for 2 weeks as a unanimous request. we may be sending additional questions to the witnesses.
there being no further business, the committee of the u.s. house, this mting is adjourned. thank you. >> newt gingrich and the political blubber speak to the republican jewish coalition in los angeles. the head of the national institute of energy on the treatment of hiv in the 30 years since the first reported cases. after that, president obama is in north carolina to talk about jobs. one of our guests on "washington journal" is jason chaffetz. he will take your questions about afghanistan.
audrey singer will outline the immigrant population. and we will focus on the labour relations with charles scraper from george washington university. it is a live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. newt gingrich says that he would move the u.s. embassy to jerusalem and suspend u.s. funding of united nations if the recognized hamas. he spoke in california last night to the republican jewish coalition. this is 40 minutes.
>> kevin mccarthy is one of the great rising stars of the republican party. [applause] it is a great opportunity to be here this evening. to be here a long many close friends. i have no and sheldon for a long time. it is wonderful to be here. i hope all of you will join me in sending our best wishes with sheldon who must go it -- be going crazy at home knowing we are here. i treasure my friendship with both of them. i salute you and sheldon for your award in recognition for all the hard work you do to keep america safe, free, and prosperous. [applause] i also salute the work of the
republican jewish coalition. the work that you do to championed free enterprise in america is a force for good in the world. it is more vital than ever. as we gather this evening, america is an economic crisis. more americans are without jobs than at any time in our history since the great depression. i am running for president to lead a movement of americans who will insist on changing washington so we can renew america. to do this, we must insist on dramatic and bold changes in washington. repealing policies that are killing jobs and stifling growth. enacting policies that will create jobs and bring back prosperity. there is no more important task for the next president.
we chatted tonight with many of you. people commented on recent weeks. as someone who was been in public life for 40 years, i know the rigors of campaigning for public office. i have had some recent reminders. [laughter] but if i could paraphrase falkner, "i will endure the challenges. i will carry the message of american renewal to every part of this great land no matter what it takes." with the help of everyone, we will prevail. [applause] an important part of american renewal is renewing leadership
as a force for lasting peace, especially in the middle east. this is why i was happy to receive your invitation to be here tonight. earlier, jewish people all over the world celebrated a feast for pentecost. commemorating the revelation of the 10 commandments on mount sinai. today is pentecost sunday in the eastern christian tradition. it was on this feast that in june of 1967, a mere six days after the old jerusalem had been reunited, that for the first time in almost 2000 years, jewish people were once again able to visit the western wall and walked the street to the oval city as citizens of a
sovereign jewish nation. [applause] hours before dawn that day, thousands upon thousands of jews gathered at the design in date to wait entry. at 4:00 a.m., the crowds were allowed to stream into east jerusalem's. the first time she's had been allowed to carry out a pilgrimage as members of a jewish nation, celebrating a jewish festival, as is the pilgrimage to a thousand years earlier. as the sun rose over the city, a tone of more than 200,000 jews made their way to a site that today remains the heart of the people, a religion, and a nation. [applause]
each year, the festival is celebrated in a similar fashion by a desk -- a pilgrimage to the western wall. generations of jews -- it signifies the end broken connection between the identity of the jewish people and the land of israel that has existed for thousands of years. generation of jews made a similar pilgrimage to the streets of jerusalem knowing that the freedom that allowed them to visit their holiest sites is more in danger that this moment than at any moment since that moment for a half decades ago. -- four and a half decades ago.
in which the survival of israel and the safety of the united states both in the balance. while the united states have won important victories in the war on terrorism, it is impossible to look at the totality of the world and conclude we are on the winning pass, if the world is a safer place. year after year, the forces of terrorism become stronger and the claims of terrorists become more acceptable to our european allies and more powerful in the united nations. year after year, the iranian dictatorship with its openly moves closer to having the nuclear means to do so. hamas grows stronger and sodas hezbollah.
today, the greatest obstacle toward achieving peace is not the strength of the enemy or the unwillingness of israel to make sacrifices for the sake of peace. it is an ability on the parts of the obama administration and other world leaders to tell the truth about terrorism, to be honest about the publicly stated goals of our common enemies and to devise policies appropriate to an honest accounting of reality. [applause] recall that during congressional testimony last year, the attorney general was asked and could not bring himself to say that the ideology of radical islam plays a role in terrorism to carry out their attacks. the report issued after fort
hood in which the major who carried around business cards the said, "warrior of allah," while opening fire on unarmed men and women, it did not mention radical islam. in a similar incident at the frankfurt -- from fo airport, the state department spokesman responded, "was the shooting of gabrielle giffords a terrorist attacks? ?" this moral confusion between the isolated actions of a madman and an attack that fits into an ideology of terrorism is sadly typical of this administration.
[applause] the obama administration's policy has been a victim of the same confusion. in his recent speech, president obama stated that israel could not be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization that denies its right to exist. but he then went on to pressure israel to do exactly that. president obama wants israel to enter into negotiations with a palestinian authority that is now in league with a terrorist organization. the president said applying this pressure was not the politically savvy for him to do. he is telling us that he is
doing the brave thing by pressuring israel to negotiate with terrorists who want to destroy it. president obama and his state department should recall some basic facts. hamas was founded to the destruction of israel. it's a charter calls for their destruction. it instructs its followers to kill jews wherever they find them. consider these recent statements -- the head of the hamas administration said, "the jews are the most despicable nation to crawl up on the face of the earth." two days later, hamas for liaison chief said that, "i
think we are entering a phase of the liberation of palestine. when we talk about that, we're talking about the notion of return. the return of the refugees to their homeland and the return of their israelis to their countries." on may 11, " in just a few years, all the zionists and sellers will realize their arrival in palestine was for the purpose of a great massacre by means of which allah wants to leave the humanity of their evil." that was said one month ago. hamas goes well beyond words to destroy israel. in 2010, over 200 missiles were fired from gaza. no country can be expected to conduct peace organizations --
peace negotiations with a terrorist organization dedicated to its destruction or with the palestinian authority that joins forces with such a terrorist organization. [applause] because of loss has not changed, peace is impossible. 20 years of hopes -- [applause] 20 years of hopes for the peace process cannot change this fundamental reality. it also means that entering into peace negotiations with any organization that acknowledges hamas is a fool's errand. it is something a friend of ms. durocher never asked it to do. [applause]
i hope this the ministration does not resort to the meaningless exercise of trying to artificially distinguish between the military and political wing of hamas. [applause] we understand that money -- ideology is constant. there unequivocal in their aim to destroy israel. that is a dangerous game with the survival of israel. in a recent speech, president obama also called up the 1967 lines as the beginning of peace and associations. he went to great lengths to have as believe that what he said at the state department was no
different than what other presidents had declared as official policy. unfortunately, that is not true. president obama has called for a remarkable shift in u.s. policy regarding the peace process. he wants israel to except the indefensible lines of 1967 as the starting point of negotiations. accepting such a proposal would be a suicidal step for israel. [applause] fortunately for jazeera, the plan for them to except the 1967 lines is a non-starter with the american people. [applause] like israel, we are committed to seeing a peace agreement that protects jerusalem as the undivided capital of the jewish
state. [applause] after all, it has only been under jewish authority the religious freedom for people of all faiths, christian, jewish, and muslim, has been protected. [applause] meanwhile, we must readily see the president's policies for what they are -- a dangerous combination of dictators and terrorist groups like hamas who oppose freedom, compromise, and peace and to view accommodation as a weakening of u.s. resolve a commitment to israel's security. [applause] policies obama's
represent a sharp break from the political circumstances of providing support to the state of israel. at the risk of their destruction and the increasing danger of the united states. [applause] the decision to adopt a policy of accommodation with terrorists using the political objectives and code words of those who wish to drive israel into the sea of firms the administration's radicalism and its headlong flight from the legacy of u.s. presidents from truman to bush and is leading israel and the western democracies toward ever- increasing danger. [applause] know where will this danger be shown more clearly than this coming september at united nations general assembly. the palestinians have said they will request recognition of palestinian statehood based upon
the 1967 borders. this action would violate every standing agreement the palestinians have with israel including the oslo accords. [applause] such recognition would take place totally apart from any negotiation with israel and without them renouncing violence or acknowledging the state could. while president obama says that the united states will vote against this action, some nations, including some in europe, are sending the signal that they may vote for it. >> boo! >> a vote to recognize the palestinian state would strengthen terrorist believes that their commitment to violence and their unwavering rejection of israel has begun to
produce the desired goals. [applause] president obama and the state department must be clear in their discussions with our western allies to remember the mistakes of history and to reject this unilateral action that would reward terrorist groups refused to abide by the basic principles of human dignity and freedom. [applause] stephen harper, the prime minister of canada had a right when he said, "when israel, the only country whose existence is under attack, i believe we are morally obligated to take a stand." [applause] focus on obama's
israel is disturbing considering the existence of a true threat to the peace of the world -- iran. the dictatorship is steadily and methodically developing nuclear weapons. four rounds of united nations sanctions have not slowed down the dictatorship by a single day. the iranian leader has been a very open and explicit about his desire to wipe israel off the map. when you realize that only three iranian nuclear weapons used against israel would bring about the equivalent of a second holocaust, you have to take his words seriously. he is also threatening united states. he is called for a "world without america."
the threat is hardly new. in a book, it is described as the illegal 19 -- seizure of u.s. embassy as the first shots in their war against america. for decades, america and israel have shared a common enemy embodied in this poisonous ideology that threatens our safety, freedom, and peace. it is the same ideology that murdered israeli athletes in 1972, that took americans hostage for four hundred 44 days. the murdered marines in 1943. the bomb the world trade center. the u.s. embassy in 1998. the uss in 2000. many of the terrorist groups that carried out these attacks have been supported directly by the nation of iran.
today, they are watching whether we keep our promises with our ally israel and how we deal with iran's proxies. the regime will also be watching how we treat israel at the u.n. general assembly. earlier this week, the nuclear chief announced their intention to triple their production of highly enriched uranium and to continue to install -- iran has also experimented with polonium which have one purpose -- to detonate a nuclear bomb. what should the united states do in the face of these facts? we first need to a knowledge -- acknowledge that these regimes
have been a failure. [applause] the time has come to clearly and decisively take the offensive against evil regimes and organizations. this begins with a firm and consistent commitment by the united states in the reagan tradition to speak plainly and truthfully about the nature of our enemies. next, our policies must reflect the fact there is no moral equivalency between terrorist regimes and illegitimate son of buttering country that abides by the rule of law. -- legitimate self-governing country that abides by the rule of law. this is increasingly critical during a moment that many have turned to the arab spring. the uprisings in egypt and libya
are evidence of the fact there are millions of peace-loving arabs who resent the brutal oppression of their dictatorships and long for peace. these uprisings are opportunities for the advancement of freedom and democracy in the middle east. at the same time, these developments are fraught with danger and bring with them the possibility that radical islamist factions will capitalize on the upheaval and take control. our commitment to condemning in confronting terrorism must be matched by commitment to affirm the efforts of oppressed arab citizens were taking extraordinary risks to seek peace, freedom, and democracy. the obama administration's silence as undermine the strength of our commitment to freedom and solidarity with those people who are yearning to breathe free.
sovereign, free nation to choose its own capital. we should respect that choice. [applause] as president, on my first day in office, i will issue an executive order directing the u.s. embassy to be moved to jerusalem. [applause] you have to let me finish. [laughter] to be moved to jerusalem as provided for in the legislation i introduced in congress in 1995. [applause] second, the united states must refuse to participate in any talks involving terrorist organizations and cut off all direct and indirect aid to
terrorists and their front groups. [applause] this must include the palestinian authority so long as it includes hamas and continues to promote the destruction of israel. we should also call on other nations who are committed to peace between israel and the palestinians to do the same. the united states should reject the concept of a right of return for palestinian refugees. [applause] the so-called right of return is a historical impossible demand that would be a demographic disaster and mean the end of the jewish state of israel. we are for a right to prosperity
and freedom, a right to the rule of law, private property, but we bust be opposed to a right of return. [applause] this means the palestinian refugee problem must be resolved outside the borders of israel by the palestinian authority. fourth, the united nations system must be replaced by a system of earned income and property rights to restore dignity to every palestinian. the current failed system of socialism has been a disaster. it has led to poverty, unemployment, bitterness, and a society that produces terrorism rather than wealth creation. [applause] more money in the form of
international aid will not solve this problem. a new approach will bring a better standard of living in greater freedom and security for palestinians then all the terrorist efforts have been able to achieve for decades. [applause] fifth, we must also reestablished the united states information agency as a worldwide anti-terrorism and pro-freedom communications system. the usia fought for our side during the cold war. they helped us win. in 1999, the agency was dismantled because they thought the war of ideas was over. we discovered in 9/11 it was not. israel is reminded of this on almost a daily basis. earlier, terrorists broke into the west bank home of -- they
stabbed to the husband and wife to death. they murdered three of their children. not even the youngest of the children, a 3-month-old baby girl, was scared. they slit the baby's throated severed her head from the body. in gaza, crowds handed out candy and celebrated. this sickening display at the gruesome murder of a three month old child is deemed result of decades of brainwashing. it is an example of the kind of barbaric acts of terror that must be rejected by all palestinians in any peace negotiation with israel. [applause] they helped america win the cold
war and it can help us win the war against evil terrorist organizations and dictatorships. to do this, we must insure the u.s. information agency as an independent board of governors reporting to the president and coordinating with the state department but not controlled by the diplomats. [applause] never again should a three month old be killed without the entire world being repulsed and joining together in condemning such terrorists and their supporters. [applause] sixth, we must aggressively confront the growing threat of a nuclear-armed iran. the existence of the regime financing terrorism across the
globe is a primary threat to the security of united states, is her, and our allies in the world. the united states must lead the world in an effort to replace the iranian dictatorship using the diplomatic, economic and covert tools ronald reagan used to defeat and dismantle the soviet empire. [applause] seventh, the united states must also establish a new strategy of taking back united nations from the forces of terrorism and dictatorship. [applause] totally discrediting the durban conference later this year -- the previous sessions have been used as a vehicle for anti-
to suspend all funding to the united nations if the general assembly moves to recognize the palestinian state under the control of hamas. [applause] eight, all of this will require a restructured state department, a new level of training and management for ambassadors, a new promotion system and a profound shift in the culture of the foreign service. [applause] the quickest way to change the culture of the state department is to inject new blood into the system. we must in gauging fundamental reform of the slow and bureaucratic system to raise the number of applicants to the foreign service. change on this scale will be bitterly fought by the old guard and their media allies. it will require a strong
experienced and knowledgeable secretary of state and a deeply committed team. my campaign website contains a detailed document outlining the other changes that will be necessary to transform the state department about the difference between terrorism and civilization. [applause] ninth, finally, the united states must establish an american energy policy designed to strengthen our national economy and weaken our opponents in the middle east. [applause] we should keep the hundreds of billions of dollars we now spend on foreign oil supplies. [applause]
we must dramatically increase american energy supplies so we can lower the margin of cost of energy worldwide. nothing will do more to the strategic balance of power and state sponsors of terror than a successful american energy policy. [applause] in closing, if were possible to say a word directly to the israeli people, i would say this -- we believe that peace is possible and that peace will come to israel. >> amen. >> the tendency to blame israel is just another variation of blaming america. it is far easier to ignore an unpleasant reality then -- and
tried to impose your will on someone that can be controlled rather than to with the unpleasant reality. if israel disarmed today, there would be no israel tomorrow. but if iran, hezbollah, and other groups disarmed, tomorrow, we would have peace in the middle east. [applause] while our challenge will not meet with such a simple solution, our commitment to israel remains a staunch as it has been from the moment of their birth. i would say this, to the brave people of israel, never underestimate the hold that israel has in american's hearts.
[applause] the american people have always believed in israel. we believe in israel still. together, we will renew our mutual commitment to freedom and justice and we will work to achieve a peace in which war and bloodshed are no longer a common feature of life for you and your children. on june 30, when italy was being invaded, the emperor appeal to the league of nations. he said, "it is us today. it will be tomorrow. " we know that if the forces of terrorism could eliminate terrorism today, there will return to america tomorrow. that is why we must reverse the dangerous policies of the obama
administration. [applause] instead we must implement a foreign policy that was clear and committed to the actions necessary. america is still a last -- the last best hope of mankind on earth. i believe that the goal of u.s. foreign policy must be the promotion of peace but that must be a real peace where freedom can flourish and justice can prevail. not a false peace that emboldens terrorists, tyrants, and murderous ideologies to extend their evil throughout the world. it is toward the possibility of real peace that america must commit. no other nation in the history of the world has been so tied to the fate of freedom throughout
the world. the time had come to reaffirm our commitment to freedom and the rule of law, to stand firmly and courageously against terrorism and evil organizations. is time to stand firmly with our friends. together, those of us who believe in freedom will defeat tierney for the fourth time in a century. together, we will earn for our children and grandchildren a freer and safer world. this is our duty. this is our generation's's rendezvous with destiny. thank you and god bless. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]
>> and dropped in spoke to the republican jewish coalition for 15 minutes. >> anyone under 18 must leave the room. i will wake up for 10 seconds. please leave the room. [laughter] i want to thank the republican jewish coalition. my first event was held here in a bar downstairs. i came for the free drinks and i stayed because i get to speak to this group for free. what of lucrative alliance we of created.
[laughter] why is this night different from all other nights? well, on this anti-american political agenda was held hostage by a smachmuck. [laughter] i see that the press left. they are afraid of me. to those who held out, you may not know who i am, i am the gentleman who had -- hacked the congressman's computer two weeks ago. he is not very good at p.r. this congressman weiner.
i'm a lot more empathetic and he thinks. if he had come to me, i could have given him advice. i started to feel sorry for him. everything you're doing is exactly wrong. one, he could've said this is another example of you on june crime. -- jew on jew crime. i would've had to apologize for the cycle of violence. the best advice i could have given him is that he was trying to demonstrate the virtues of circumcision against the anti- circumcision lobbyists. [laughter] not going to go blew all
night because i come here with purpose. i went to my bomblets the 20 years ago. -- bar mitvah 20 years ago. i was kicked out of hebrew school by rabbi. in hindsight, that is where the battle started between the liberal jewish community. i am so glad i spoke out of turn in its hebrew school. i remember my father run the same era, i remember him pulling me saying we are getting
the hell out of here. that is when the rabbi supported rev. jesse jackson after calling n.y. "himney town ." i'm glad to use common sense and said of the degree i got from tulane university, that somehow the jews were the zero presser. -- oppressor. i don't get it. this rasheed, it doesn't make sense to me. i do not understand how a decent and free people could be the bad guy. it never made sense to me. never made sense to me. i'm glad i've become a journalist because i want to fight on behalf of the israeli people. i have been there.
30 years since the first reported case of hiv aids. where are we today? guest: we have made progress, but historically the profile has been devastating. just short of 70 million people infected. about 30 million people have died. 34 million people are living with hiv throughout the world. 2.6 -- 2.6 million infections each year. it is still a very important public gold -- public global healthcare problem. when i was taking care of hiv patients in the early 1980's, if someone came into a hospital people had median survival rate -- people had median survival
rates that were measured in months. you could predict that they would live an additional 50 years. the problem is that in many parts of the world, it is still out of control. host: that is worldwide? caller: in the united states we have 56,000 new cases each year. 1.1 million americans are infected. one of the real issues is that about 20% do not know it. those are the ones who are disproportionately infecting other people. they do not even realize it. currently one of the real pushes is to be very aggressive in seeking out and voluntarily testing people. host: why are more people not getting tested? caller: -- guest: people feel they are essentially not at risk. that they have other problems in
the life. they are part of the disenfranchised group of individuals. it is the reason we need to keep pushing to get people tested. host: how does the number track over the last 30 years? caller: in europe -- guest: in the early days we were having a very concentrated and uncontrolled outbreaks. we are down to 56,000 per year, but it is still a high number. very bad. we have got to get that curve back down. host: where is the government's role in the research and treatment? guest: huge. if you look at the fundamental research that has been done but has been primarily funded by the national institute of health, over the last 30 years they have
spent cumulatively about a co love $5 billion in research on hiv. host: our guest with us this morning, if you want to ask him questions, for republicans, 202- 624-1115. for democrats, 202-624-1111. for independents, 202-624-0760. firstname.lastname@example.org is the e- mail. you can send us a twitter twitter.com/c-spanwj. what are the cities with the highest rates? guest: we are sitting right in the middle of the city with the highest rate. washington, d.c. it is extraordinary. about 6% of african-american males are infected.
it really varies greatly. the bigger cities have more. particularly cities that have higher concentrations of men that have sex with men. host: yuri, pa., go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i am a nurse practitioner. i am glad you have said would to have said. the majority of the people in -- of the people infected in 2009 were male to male. very few from drug use. the second category, heterosexual, there were more women than men. if you look at the race, sadly, half were african-american. until you start addressing the fact that this is a preventable
disease that is largely fit -- due to uncommitted heterosexual and homosexual relationships, we will not have any progress. can you address how much we pay for each person per year on these drugs? it is devastating that we are not getting to the point where we need to encourage people to engage in committed sexual relationships and get back to funding education. guest: the caller makes a great point. there is a great disparity in this country. 12% of the u.s. population is african-american and close to 50% of the new infections are in
the community. there are a variety of reasons. economic conditions. the real lack of acceptance, or stigma, against men that have sex with men in the african- american community. much more generally a accepted by caucasians. there is a great deal less stigma and they do none allow themselves to have the same discussions that go on in other sections of the community. i was just in new york last week. commemorating the anniversary of the first anniversary of aids, it became clear that we could not treat our way out of the epidemic. treatment had to be a major modality. strikingly, it was shown about one month ago that if you treat
an individual who is infected early in the course of their disease, not only is it beneficial for the individual but it remarkably decreases the likelihood that that person will transmit the infection to their uninfected sexual partner in a heterosexual setting. treatment becomes a part of upper setting. fundamental modalities to get people under treatment who are infected. host: then how do you deliver that message? guest: you get out in the community with targeted messages. we know the higher risk categories. you have got to target your message to those individuals to make it seem homogeneous. it helps it to look politically correct, but it is not really
the case. you have got to get community workers out in the community and get them tested in council. that is what we are doing in washington, d.c. we are working with a study that is linked to the south bronx, which has a similar demographic profile. close call -- host: manhattan, damien, independent mind. caller: but the last caller said it is not realistic. i have been diagnosed since 1993. i have been self-destructive. my count went down the 160. my doctor -- new medication -- healthy as i can be. i agree that the infection rate
-- chances -- host: color, you are breaking up. anything you can take from that? guest: that treating -- preaching abstinence only has been proven to be ineffective. if you just teach abstinence without teaching the other way is to avoid infection, that is when you get a serious issue. host: talking about those that were affected, what are the symptoms? what should they look for democrats call lurk -- guest: you should not worry about symptoms -- what should they look for? guest: you should not worry about symptoms, because if you wait for them, it is too late. many people need therapy even if
they feel well. the earlier the to get the therapy, the better. the other advantage is if they are not infected you get them into this system on counseling them about what they need to do to continue to prevent themselves from being infected. host: as far as symptoms? guest: it really varies. advanced disease, pneumonia, very unusual types of pneumonia. people generally feel very sick and if there is a risk category -- that is the reason you go into a doctor's office and give them symptoms. we have people in an hour of hospitals that are doing perfectly well, feeling a bit tired, all of a sudden presenting with what we would call an aids defining illness.
when you examine the profile and you find out that they were likely infected for least 10 years or more. which is unacceptable. if someone is practicing risky behavior, they should be tested right away. so that they can get appropriate therapy earlier rather than later. host: what do you mean by central nervous system? guest: you can get strange infections in the brain. things that well people would never get. another problem that we have seen, certain types of tumors, lymphoma in the central nervous system. the brain can be a target for a secondary from hiv.
caller: hello. my question for you is sort of a multifaceted. i sit on the prevention group in massachusetts. i have been hiv-positive for over 20 years. i was diagnosed with an aids diagnosis in 1995. -- 1985. i want to ask you about your cr5 work andhe c any talk on that. host: we want to know what ccr5. caller: it is a kinetic mutation. they say people with two of these do not get hiv. they have done studies where they were able to wipe out his hiv. host: thank you. guest: what the calller is
referring to is the issue of possibly sharing a person with hiv. if you do -- if you get on the drugs find, you will do fine. there are millions of people walking around well because the drugs are so affected. this issue of the chair comes up, and this means you can take someone off the drug and it does not bounce back. currently as good as the drugs are, as soon as to stop them, the virus comes back here yet there was a very unusual case that people are making a lot out of in this sense of saying it is a proof of concept for a cure. you have to be careful about that. it was someone who had hiv infection and developed a complication of a certain type of leukemia and required a some spell transplant. they got this themself from someone who had a genetic defect that would prevent that person cell from getting infected with
hiv. they did that in the person who was hiv infected, and they gave him all the eminent suppression that you need, and it turns out the person which the transplant helped or cured their leukemia, but now the person is no longer requiring the anti-hiv drugs because the cells and their body are not susceptible to hiv. that is an interesting phenomenon, but it is not practical on a wide scale. it is completely impractical to be thinking of that, because you have to suppress the persons marrow, which can kill you. you need a transplant, which is extremely expensive, and then you have to be immunosuppressed and drugs for the rest of your life. even though the idea of a cure is alive and well, and we are striving very aggressively to find a cure, the idea of giving
someone else and still transplant and all that goes with it is frankly not feasible. caller: i wanted to ask the doctor the same thing he just discussed. i wanted to know if there was any potential learning that could be utilized? even though you could not stem cells, is there another potential lesson that could be derived? i know you have to spend huge amounts of man hours on this, but is that giving another perspective, or was that something that was considered even before it was actually found to be true? >> the thing about this themself transplant and what we call it a truth -- approve of transplant. that is somehow by mechanism you
can block the virus on an individual. in this case it was done by transplanting cells that did not have the expression of the receptive. if you can do it some way or another with gene therapy or another approach, which has a high likelihood of failure but not impossible, and we're trying very hard to do that that we can consider the individual patient, though and practical from the widespread standpoint, it does actually represents what we called a proof of concept, and that is what people are working on right now. various molecular ideas to tone down the expression of this receptor which allows someone to get infected. >> what is the difference in the course of treatment today versus 30 years ago? guest: huge. 30 years ago we did not know what the virus was. when it was isolated in 1983 in 1984, the first drug was a blip
of hope because people did well for awhile, and in the virus became resistant to the drug. it was not until the mid-1990s when the triple combination of what we call a cocktail of drugs was available that we began to be able to effectively bring down the level of virus to below detectable levels. if you look at what we have now, a person can come in with one killed that has three drugs in it and take it once a day, that person can successfully suppressed the fire risk. even when we have multiple drugs, people were taking 15 or 20 bills per day, and it was very difficult for a person to keep up with a regimen. -- 15 or 20 pills per day. host: what is the cost? guest: it varies. the cost of the types of drugs sold in the non-generic way,
mainly just over the counter from the manufacturer, they range anywhere from 12,000 to $14,000 per year. right now in the developing world using generics are much less expensive. in fact, they can be measured in a few hundred dollars per year. host: what about insurance? guest: most of the inferences cover the therapy for hiv infected. host: 33 million people living with hiv, 20% higher than 2000. 3 million infected with hiv. 30% less than the peak of the epidemic. 90% of the people are low and middle income countries. 56,000 new infections each year in the united states. what are survival rates looking like? guest: if you do not have treatment, it is like it was in the 1980's.
some people die within a few years, but the median survival from the time you get infected is somewhere around 10 or 11 years. you for start getting to -- the serious disease. if someone comes in to my clinic or any clinic for the hacker facilities in this newly diagnosed, and let's say the person is 20 years old, newly infected and you put them on appropriate therapy, you could predict they could live another 15 years -- 50 years. the life span is approaching if someone gets under appropriate therapy. host: our republican line. brandon from pennsylvania. i was wondering about the status of an aids vaccine. guest: a year-and-a-half ago there was a trial that we conducted with the united states government and they
country of thailand with a vaccine that was found to be moderately effective. it is of being deployed, but it was the proof of concept that a vaccine actually can work. there is a lot of work going on for hour -- for the development of the vaccine, but it is not a year away. it will likely be several years. host: what is the scope of the current research being done? guest: incentives. we spend about $650 million per year for an aids vaccine. a number of candidates, which we're turning our the write components to inject into an individual to reduce response that you hope will be protected. there is a lot of work going on throughout the country and the world, supported by a number of groups, but particularly the nih.
host: this letter as how we're doing on keeping out of 84 -- blood out of transfusions and therapy? >> that is prettguest: that is h settled. the blood supply is really quite safe. the chances of getting an infection from a blood transfusion is vanishingly small. host: harlem, new york. steve on the democrat line. caller: i do research also. i am going to be in dc next week because of the aids clinical trial. my question is you said something about the ccr5. the researchers looking at that is not to the bone marrow but the procedure to try to eradicate it.
they're also looking at the sleeping cells. i guess they're trying to stir the sleeping sells better in the body, to wake them up so that and try-retro by rolls -- so retro viralsti- will eliminate them. guest: what the calller is referring to is the lately- infected pool. he is using the terminology sleeping cells. it is where the cells are infected but they are not actively making virus, so they are late and. it is very difficult to eradicate that pool of cells. as part of the push to develop a cure, there are proposals and experiments going on to activate the pool and hopefully not have the virus spread to other cells,
but to kill the cells once they start spitting out the virus. thus far that approach has been unsuccessful, but that is ok. people are continuing to try to find new ways of doing that he is talking about a leighton reservoir of hiv. atent reservoir of hiv. caller: thank you for everything you have done. my partner and i are both hiv- positive. i was bearing this in the military back in 1987. i received great benefit from the va system. my partner received social security, the upper end of social security which is around $1,500. due to the fact that he received the upper end, his cost of his medication are almost like 1000 to $1,200, which is practically
impossible for him to pay. is there any political thing where they're trying to cover this up for people? he is not eligible for medicare advantage. unfortunately it has forced him and me both to come up with a solution ourselves. one calller earlier started -- stated about starting and stopping medication. two years ago we stopped and started medications. i take a very extreme regiment, and i would take it for four months in stop and give it to my partner. i know this is practicing medicine without a license, but we do what we do to survive. we have both stayed undetectable for over two years by the grace of god. we do not want to do this. we are not active physically in the gay community.
we are in texas basically to other people. -- we are basically infectious to other people. the doctor tot respond. guest: it is really unfortunate that the availability of health care is not able to get the resources to treat their infection, which is the drug he is getting is life-saving. the calller is really lucky that by stopping the medication not coming back. s that is not recommended. very dangerous to do that for a number of reasons, one of which is then you could reduce insistence of your virus to the drug you are using. when you start and stop you give the virus the opportunity to generate resistance to the drugs
that are being used. although he says when he goes off is by role load, which means the level of virus in his blood remains undetectable, he is very lucky and unusual that is the case, so although it may work for him, that is not something you at all recommend for people to go on their drug performance and off for four months. it is really unfortunate that the resources are not made available to him to be able to stay on these life-saving drugs continually. host: what is the recommended as far as how often you should test? guest: you mean an uninfected person? if an uninfected -- an infected person is having risky behavior, at least once a pair year. those with the virus, you do not need to test them. you want to test the viral load a couple of times per year, but
you do not need to retest them for the virus. host: hartford, conn. david on the democrat line. foraller: things you giving your professional life to this kind of research. i am wondering if you can tell me. a friend of mine i played cards with tested positive in 1988. he is been on nearly every drug they have. he is healthy. he showed me a receipt for a year's worth of medications from his insurance companies with over $36,000. he makes copays, he works and is perfectly healthy, but he is getting near to retirement in scared to death what will happen. how is it that foreign countries can have generics that do not exist in this country and our drug costs are so high? is there anything that can be done about this? guest: that is an excellent
question, and something of this country is struggling with. it is not in my area of influence to have anything to do with that, but i can certainly emphasis -- empathize with the concerns being expressed. other countries not only have the ability to use generics, but those countries also, many of them have universal health care, which means that individuals are infected and had total accessibility to drugs. if you look in south america, brazil is a classic example that if you are infected, you will get treatment from the health plans free as part of the health care delivery system. there are people who are not only not able to get drugs because of the lack of health care system that fits them, but it is true the drugs are very expensive.
host: republican line. good morning. caller: thank you. thank you for c-span. i want to say that i believe in celibacy for all people, and i have been completely celibate for nine years. i believe that is the way to go. guest: for the individual call, that is the way to go. in the real world of what goes on out there, celibacy, though it works for those were celibate, it does not work when you're talking about those with hiv, because most people are not celibate. so we have to have prevention measures for hiv that are risk reduction, because people are going to have sexual relationships the matter what we say, so although celibacy and
very unusual circumstances, people like to be celibate, but in the broad global situation of hiv, that just does not happen. host: are there strains of the virus? guest: there are. they do not vary with respect to drug treatment. c and a.a it is see and the treatment is not different. they are just a little bit different molecular weight. host: cincinnati, ohio. democrat line. caller: doctor, thank you again for your help with the virus. and my question is i was diagnosed in 1980 s6.
my question is does your body goes through a noticeable change when you are infected? in 1984 i had a bout with flu- like symptoms over the weekend in happened, and two days later i was fine. i was never found anybody that can answer my question. does your body goes through a noticeable change when you are infected at the initial infection of the virus? guest: there is no doubt your body goes under a notable change, mostly for the worst in the sense that when the virus replicates, it destroys components of your immune system, and we know now after many years of experience that the replicating virus, hiv as it reproduces itself, creates a degree of what we call very abnormal activation of the body system, which has a number of
effects. the answer to your question, the short answer is certainly the virus does have an effect on your body, and quite about effect actually appear yet ho. host: san francisco next on the independent line. caller: thank you, a doctor, and for c-span. my question is i was married for quite a long time. i am now divorced. i have cancer now, and so far i have tested negative for aids, but my x, i am not sure at the time when we parted whether his sexual activity could have exposed me. i have had real current lymphoma, which means i have had to first stage battles, which they say i am currently in
remission. the diagnosis was found, the pass a law which said it is remarkable -- the pathologist said it is remarkable to have this stage of cancer with the white count. the way they found it was biopsy. i was wondering the relationship between the two, and also the post-treatment side effects, and do i have the sleeping sell or could i have the sleeping sell ♪ cell? guest: the college is mentioned she is not hiv-positive. if that is the case, the diagnostic tests for hiv positivity are very sensitive. so i am sure her physician no
doubt has of her for hiv, particularly if she said she had an arrest with her sexual partner. if she is negative, which it sounds like she is, this far after having exposure to a person who would be infected, and she clearly is negative, and the lymphoma as something that is unrelated to hiv. she is asking could she have these reservoir, but hebert in tried the test is positive -- excuse me,-, she does not have this. if she did, her agency would be clearly positive, and it is not. host: there are stories about this e. coli break out, especially in germany. what is the message for those in the united states? guest: it is not here in the united states. ot worryage is, do not rea
about it. practice good hygiene no matter the situation. the situation in germany was quite tragic. there was contamination now out sprouts that got contaminated with a very common bacteria called the coli. the reason this particular bacteria is so dangerous is that it produces a toxin, which happens to be called sugar toxin. they named the bacteria stec. it has been extremely dangerous and sickened a few thousand people in germany and the european union. they have a secondary complications, which means the red cells get destroyed by this
toxin, and they then go into kidney failure. there have been 23 deaths associated with that particular syndrome, and another 12 or 13 deaths associated with this typical type of an e coli abdominal issues. it is a serious situation there. there have been a couple of cases who people of in germany and came back to the united states. one clearly diagnosed and a possible diagnoses. the issue is not in the united states right now. host: how open are we to a break out of that kind of magnitude? guest: there is always the possibility of food outbreaks. that is why we have to be very careful with the inspection of food. we occasionally get outbreaks of e. coli, a different type. the one that is in germany is a different type.
they are different categories of the different type of bacteria. we have not seen this here in the united states. host: ron, republican line. caller: i was encouraged earlier in your discussion appear did you talk about the prevalence of aids in the black community and your desire to target high-risk groups. i worked for a number of year in corrections, and it seems to me if you dig deeper into the numbers, you will find the prevalence in the black community, you could extend that to the inmate population and the people who are infected when they get out of corrections. given that, inmates lose a
number of their rights on going into corrections. if you do periodic testing, mandatory testing of the inmate population, you should be able to segregate them, and as a condition of parole, have them talk to their loved one when they get out of prison. guest: i cannot be making policy with regard to the correction system, but the calller does make a very good point. one of the thing that happens is when people are in the system and hiv positive, if they are recognized to be hiv-positive, if the system is working right, they should be getting therapy when they get out. as often happens, when they get out they may not tell their sexual partner they are infected and wind up infecting their underwear sexual partner.
that does not happen frequently in the sense of people deliberately trying to infect people, but when you go into one system and out of the general society, there is often the lack of continuity of medicare or the kind of counseling that the calller is talking about. that is a problem, because there is a reasonably high percentage of people, particularly to have been injection drug users will get into the system who are positive. host: dallas, texas. david on the democrat line. and caller: thank you for all you have done for humanity. wasow thseveral years there an attempt of heating the blood to kill the virus. i know it was not successful. do you know if research has been done in the other direction, lowering the body temperature? i know we have been able to work
the body temperature significantly without harming the person. guest: the answer is not formally when you're talking about cooling the body, because it is very clear from what we know about the virus that environmental changes will kill the cells in the person long before the kill the virus. the idea of heating or chilling the virus, we have such a effective anti-viral drugs right now, it does not make sense to do the dramatic manipulations to suppress the virus when you can do it easily with a single pill that contains three drugs. host: san diego, california. you are last call. norris on the independent line. caller: i like the question about the medicines that is generated to bite this hiv.
what kind of raw material -- where does this medicine come from? what kind of plant? why do -- why can't americans grow that plant? guest: most of the medicines do not come from a plant. they are synthesized and created in a way many medicines are by synthetic processes, and that is the reason why pharmaceutical companies, when they make them coming you see the pictures of how it is done. the make asepsis and put it in a tablet or capsule. host: looking at the future, what is ahead? guest: 1 we are relatively
optimistic at the 30th anniversary, because a lot of scientific validated tools to prevent hiv infection. we still have some scientific doubts. we need a safe and effective vaccine we do not have yet. even absence of a vaccine, if we implement properly the prevention things we have had available, there is a strong feeling we could turn this pandemic around. we have more of an implementation gap then we'd have a scientific out, and that is what a lot
them, the americans did not give the assistance, i am talking now weapons, money, so forth, directly to them. the role greatly increased in size and function during that period. i would not say only because of the action against the soviet union. that was a major factor. ironically, as we contemplate all the complex between ourselves and isi, it is important to keep in mind their origins are mixed up with our foreign policy.
from their beginnings. there is a question that has been raised, is the isi competitive or cooperative? i would say it is both. in my mind. the whole world is asking how they could not know about beat -- bin laden. how was a possible that isi did not know. most people conclude of course they knew. i suggest they are not cooperative. however, we should not ignore the fact that muhammed and many other al qaeda leaders and operatives were captured and killed in pakistan with isi
assistance. they have been providing assistance. one explanation of this competitive vs. cooperative issue, i think seth jones or name?s, what's his tellis. he addresses the. in 2001, when we pressured the pakistani is to help us participate in the war on terror, we did not insist they drop ties with the taliban of that time. we were focused on al qaeda. isi said fine, we will cooperate on knocked tschida -- al qaeda.
it was not brought up. we did not insist. the isi their relationships with this group while they targeted the al qaeda in assisting us. an impression i got was there was also something else to it decides what i just said. -- besides when i just said. the differing threat isieptions, i think bp is the consider these individuals as threats to them and to the high side. isi.
they did not consider the taliban as a threat. if you look at the arrests that were done, a lot of them were done in settled areas, the cities. the urban areas. i think the isi consider these operatives a threat in pakistan in the urban areas. however they did not consider taliban guerrillas in the mountains of the north frontier province as a threat. it is now -- i am familiar. i think that perception continued until recent times when some of these groups have
now began to target the pakistani military and target pakistani civilian populations, putting bombs in marketplaces, blowing up tribal areas and attacking the military directly. and not just military but families of the military. they did an attack at a mosque which was attacking the families of the military. if you recall that incident a couple of years ago. this was an attack on muslims playing in a mosque in the military sector. now the terrorists are attacking the military. i think the perception is changing as to what is the terrorist threat to pakistan. the role in the
taliban. a lot of people have written that the taliban is a covert action of the isi. you see that a lot. there is a lot of evidence to support the thesis. if you read set jones, and he has a series of quotes that argue that point. basically the isi created the taliban. the taliban after the russian withdrawal. i would present contrary evidence because it is a wilderness of mirrors. it is hard to say with certainty anything. in my conversations with former
taliban, they do not mention isi at all. they only talk of a bid to organize themselves. i will give you an example of their view of themselves. ahmed, the former taliban foreign minister, he studied in pakistan in a madrasah. it was not a madrasah financed by the saudis or one controlled by isi. it was funded by followers who had been killed by the communists. but do not remember the name. he studied at the mudra said the become -- he would go is said to
not understand why you americans insist on calling me this name. it is a higher level. it is like a college degree vs. high school degree. you can say it but forevermore he was mulah. he described the timing of the turban ceremony when he was graduated. this was a pakistan. then he returned to as hometown. these were the days of the civil war after the russians left. there were roadblocks set up by militias and war lords. they would still from people --
steal from people. it was a disaster. it was a breakdown of society. it was war lordism and a complete absence of law and order. when he returned to he was absolutely disgusted as to what had happened to afghanistan during his absence. then he heard about this group of islamic students, the taliban that was forming. he said he would join them because we need to impose islamic law and order. he described how we sought out the taliban and joined them. he sought them out. because there was a need in afghanistan for something. in his whole story of the rise of the taliban, the isi is a bit
player. they are there but they are not really important. he does describe how a lot of officers would where turbans and blackbeard's -- beards. black turbans and beards. there we go. grey beards, even better. they were trying to pass themselves off as clerics. everyone knew they were isi officers. they tried to shape this movement but the taliban dispute that the widespread assumption in the literature, that they were re isi covert
action. let's return to the present. in terms of current isi support for the taliban, there's a lot of evidence on that end. u.s. and nato officials uncovered several months -- instances where they provided information and other insurgents that the tactical operation -- they tipped off taliban forces about the location and movement of coalition forces. it undermined several anti- taliban operations. isi collected intelligence on the movement of nato forces. isi members shared some of this information with the taliban. they also provided training.
so they provided training and intelligence. they provide strategic advice. the ultimate manifestation of that came with july 7, 2008, at the indian embassy in cobble where they concluded that isi who were -- agents who were involved in the attack, which killed 54 people, including the indian defense, that led president karzai to complain informally. is this a rogue operation? that is hard to say. some observers would argue that these lower ranking isi officers
would not do what they do if they did not have the approval of their superiors. it is hard to imagine the scope of the assistance to the taliban is the work of rogue agents that is not approved at the highest levels of their organization. the other issue is to what degree do the answer to the army? people are different sides. some pakistani, former officers they describe them as a law unto themselves. that does not take its orders from the military. they have gone so far to say that they are implicated in attacks on military personnel. why would they do that? they want to promote instability. fleming close my remarks with
the issue of why. why does isi pursue the strategy of cooperation and competition? i argue they still cooperate even now. they also compete. why do they pursue that strategy? a lot has been written about the fear of encirclement by india. the ongoing conflict with india. there has been a lot written. i think there's a lot to it. i think they're concerned about indian activities in afghanistan, road building, funding to political parties and political figures. india's covert action in
afghanistan, the opening of consulates, or "nests of spies." this is what they view is going on north of their border. it is kind of defensive. their strategy. in their mind, they are not the bad guys. they are protecting themselves. by using these surrogates. there has been a lot written on that. another element that has not been as much written about, is disappointment with the u.s. lack of faith in our reliability. everyone will tell you about all the negative things that happened when we lost interest in afghanistan and pakistan when
the russians were driven out. that is well known. another episode that is not as well-known, i remember well because i was involved. i witnessed it myself. it happened in 2005. everybody is thinking, what happened then? that should have disappointed anybody or promoted a lack of faith in us. it was when nato was given command for operations in afghanistan. there was a lot of afghans this said it was the beginning of the end. the americans are not going to stick it out. the fact that the americans have placed nato as the head of the military effort, it is the
beginning of their withdrawal. i think they are right. of course we had a room political reasons for doing that. we did not do it that way. i think the afghan and the -- the afghans and the pakistani perceive it that way. this lack of resolve and america's part to sticking out, to be in there for the long haul. of course the negative perception has been a tremendously exacerbated by the recent announcement and debate about how much and how fast we are going to withdraw. we of such a debate. now of the debates about how much, how soon, how fast, how soon can we stop financing the war, how fast can we pull out,
all of this reverberates in pakistan and afghanistan. this increase is the isi thinking that they are in this on their on. it is useful for us to have relations with taliban commanders for our own security here after the americans leave. it is actually not the day -- is not so much that we are involved. it is that we are not involved. that is why they take this independent stance. i know a lot of people would disagree but it is something to think about. let me and it with that. [applause] >> if you have a question to ask
we have a microphone. what about back there? we have two microphones. we will start with the first question. i saw a hand here. then somebody over here. up here in the front. >> my question -- to what extent is isi guilty of a mirror imaging when it analyzes its partners in the u.s. and india? dozen isi -- does an isi think it is part of an agenda to give problems as they deal with its own minedia? what is the say about their analytic capabilities? are there officers that hone their craft and analytic skills?
if not, is our discussion to improve analytic capabilities? >> i think i did refer to this in my opening remarks. there is a strong perception in pakistan, in the military in particular, that there is some kind of an overarching plan. as to which side talks about this is unclear. i run across this point of view that there is a master plan and is often based on what people read on the internet. the most often quoted source for this, whether the isi and the military, is a ralph peters and
his famous map. they look at the events surrounding the analysis and say she must've been briefed by ex wires the. as i said, -- x, y, or z. as a set, it must be seen if it can be replicated in other countries. i think this is the weakest element. there is some much at the isi. particularly now that officers to go into the isi are looking for the next promotion and that people and not coming in there with a great deal of intelligence experience or analysis. they are straightforward soldiers. they see themselves as soldiers.
they want to go back to seoul during. is that the lower ranks that people stay on longer. the younger majors perhaps. they may stay on because of age or service requirements. so there is a career path for their intelligence operations inside the military in pakistan. certainly within the isi ./ they're so far down the totem pole that their analyses are quite often meaningless and ignored by the military superiors. >> can i add something to that? when you're talking about did desire to gear up a p .r. presence, one of the most
interesting days i had to pakistan was taken to the isi headquarters and given a lengthy briefing on virtually every aspect of the activities. one of the briefings was on their view of what the americans thought. it was fascinating. it was completely correct. they think we are obsessed with india because yada, yada. they think we're stupid about this. it was very well-organized. it was spot on. they do have a spokesperson for the foreign media who is extremely capable. he sometimes comes over here is speaks to people. .hey're pretty sophisticated
>> could i just add one thing that congress mentioned? 2005 was a watershed year. at the end of 2005, military intelligence did an analysis looking historically u.s.- pakistan engagement in cambridge to the conclusion -- came to the conclusion that the u.s. is prepared to leave. >> there is a question in the front. i will introduce them here. here is with us. we have one from every year who teaches. next year we plan to have a much more robust program on pakistan. >> have a question from the budget from something you raised. two questions.
the first is a generic question relating to any intelligence agency whether pakistani, indian, anything. if some leader who is now retired engaged in support of terrorists and the agency is not supporting them, should they be held responsible? the second question is more isi specific. isi have supported some organizations that have been
violent. they're not supporting them anymore. these are the nations that engage in terrorist acts. should they be held responsible because what that done in the past? >> who would like to start? >> i can. i think it is said that retired agents are involved in things like that. if they are involved, things that are violations of the law, if they do not want to be held responsible, it would take some kind of action against them. on the second question, if they no longer support those groups,
i think it would behoove them to take stronger actions against them. but it like for you had trials delayed for years. you have the leadership under house arrest. in the view of pretty much everybody, still controlling the organization. it becomes a question of seeing them taking action against these people who are doing things that they themselves have said are contrary to the interest of pakistan, and in many cases violations of the law. >> anyone else? >> i can add something to this. what complicates the situation is not that there is any desire lack of desire to take action but because the legal framework and procedural system is so weak
in addressing terrorism that there is not enough work that is done to support any of these cases. so we get caught in an interesting situation from the outside where we demand action as a foreign authoritative system. if the rule of what the man's evidence and that evidence is missing, the judge will throw it out. that is what is happening. putting people for a fixed. and then extending get, tearing them up. the cause goes back to the time when the sharks decided he wants to make india. he won in be shut off
infiltration across the line of control. at that point there was no plan on how to demobilize these groups. they just cut them loose. when they did that, they lost the ability to be a will to control them to a large extent. a lot of their handlers ended up going to these organizations that are now financially autonomous. so they can operate effectively. >> we had one question, i think the man in the blue shirt. yeah. i will come back to you. he had his hand up first. introduce yourself and then ask the question. [inaudible]
[laughter] what about the second part? >> what is pakistan's ultimate nightmare? >> what i hear from pakistanis, maybe those in the audience could speak out. they do not say that in the is going to take over pakistan and reincorporate it. that is not what i hear. i hear india wants to destabilize pakistan and keep it week so it can manipulate it better. that is why they support the insurgency. >> a question over here at the end. >> i am with a consulting firm. in the past few years, there is
a lot of talk of pakistan becoming a failed state and felt nation. is having atomic arsenal a big headache, what will happen if it falls into the wrong hands? what is the united states doing to ensure that this does not happen? sure that is a question about the isi. i would prefer not to answer it here. back there. we cannot hear you. can you speaking to the microphone?
[inaudible] >> the isi is more under the control of the army chief. i would draw the attention of this panel to a couple of misnomers. when we talk about pakistan military, we are just using the wrong term actually. it is the army, not military. i will be charitable to the other services in college junior partners. -- and call them junior partners.
another misnomer is that isi and chief are not in control of anything. for example, when musharrif appointed the chief of army, none of the commanders accepted him even though the chief was airborne. isi is nothing. >> what is your question? [laughter] >> if you want me to ask a question. >> that's ok. [laughter] >> i am a paid intern. my question is directed toward anyone.
talking about the in the issue in relation to the isi, he stated he does not believe they are separate body from the military but rather included, doesn't that make our problem a lot worse because it basically a state-isi's has been sanctioned role. dealing with the indian issue, the fallacy of the india thread, they all say that the idea of india as a threat has always been used as a kind of abstraction by the military and the standing of wheat government within pakistan to distract from creating a democratic
society. whenever a democratic society, an agreement was reached in the 1970's. he was executed. a coup happens every time in its ability can be reached. i would make the argument that there has been no proof. i'm not making and in the argument in any way. they could have shut down the treaty that has been working stabling. >> i think what you're asking about his political culture of the isi. you did say something on that issue. if you want to elaborate on his question. >> let me agree with what she said. the isi which ever power center
the report to, whether the civilian prime minister or the army chief, the isi reflects national policy. i do not believe that it is a rogue agency. that addresses the question of the relationship between india and pakistan. that is a relationship that is not been said by the -- set by the isi. on that score, i was in in the india in march. i do detect a change in direction. there is an increasing realization that india does not pose an immediate threat. the offense would return to a sense of normalcy, they would be much better equipped to do with the problems.
what can the u.s. or india do? i think both countries can do a lot to strengthen the movement away from the old idea that perhaps pakistan wanted to create a vassal state. why would india want to take over pakistan? 185 million angry muslims. a lot of the military training. it would be an impossible situation. it makes no sense. in effect, it makes more sense from an indian point of view to have an open and friendly border with pakistan. that opens up the border to afghanistan and central asia. then everybody wins. it is no longer a zero sum game. -- just the isi as t isi.
>> on this side. >> i am an independent consultant. my question about the case. is there any evidence the people killed or with the isi. there are rumors abounding. >> a straightforward question. karen? >> i have seen conflicting reports. i do not know. >> i do not know either. no idea. >> we make it unanimous. >> a question here. >> my question is very simple and straightforward. the case has been concluded in india.
why isn't the intelligence community pressure in pakistan? -- pressuring pakistan? that might bring a facts of the we may know something. >> i am not sure what you're asking. who should be taking this up? >> what trial? oh, i see. who would like to say anything? >> it is all well and good to say on a whole range of issues while anti-american pressuring the pakistanis more? i think they pressure and just about as much as what the traffic will bear. more pressure, they do not have
the leverage to exert more plush -- pressure. there are lot of people in congress after the bin laden thing that said, off with their heads. i think the prevailing point of view is, then what would we do? again, as has been said, that court case is languishing for all kinds of reasons. they have to do with the thetical is asiaization, complication of the laws, if you note in the case in chicago, what the guy was convicted of was not the elements that had to do with the isi. so.
>> this is one case for better relations with help of yet officials on both sides who conferred quietly ahead of time what they need. i think that would get around the problem. there is an excellent article on that issue in the times of india. this is one of the side benefits of improved relations. >> pakistan would like for the united states to be more active in persuading india to be more amenable to relations. india has been very adamant that it is none of the united states' business to be involved in that. there is only so much a pushing that can be done. people in this country think that all they have to do is wield the u.s. might.
>> just a couple of points. one is that you cannot persuade a country to take actions that they perceive to be against the national interest. secondly i mentioned the question of police work on the pakistan side. recently in connection with the mumbai case, a list provided by india. my friends tell me the great embarrassment at the was discovered that a number of people on their list for in indian jails are had been recently released from jails. one of them was dead. these are the people that had been provided on a list to pakistan alleging that pakistan had got these people and should find them and return them to
india. currently there is a lack of solid police work on both sides. >> but go near the back. over here. since we have had no one near the back so far. >> i am a human rights activist. you know that the isi is involved. many people are disappearing. what do you think? i know that the isi is an dalton extremism. -- is involved in extremas and. meism. >> i wish i had the evidence you had to make this statement about
the involvement of the isi. i do not know anything about that case. i'm afraid i cannot comment. there is concern that is been expressed publicly by the media in pakistan about the so-called disappearances'. i think that is a serious cause for concern. that is the point i was referring to when i said that sometimes the intelligence agencies get so used to exercising power domestically but even when they do not have the authority, there is a temptation to exceed that and to go into prosecution activities. people are taking more cognizance of this. the media are critical in getting civil society to put pressure on the government to change the behavior. >> about 5 per 10 minutes.
why should we expect pakistan would change its policy? because of u.s. interest? why should they follow american foreign policy? thanks. >> what is the question? >> we could somehow secure american interest. >> countries operate on their own principles and take stands on their own. a country's debt. we do and everyone else does. that is the quick answer. let's go to the back again. the man in the green shirt. >> thank you very much. i have a nine hour broadcast on
radio. from the discussion, we have established that the pakistan isi continues its length with the militants belonging to various provinces. the question of the feeling, if you leave pakistan at the mercy of the military, has the united states given up or will it give up after war in afghanistan? what is the future? >> here again i think that is a question of relationships with countries. i am not sure this is the place. another interesting question but i do not think this is the forum for that. let's take another one. the man in the white.
>> hello. somebody said the country's work in their national interest. in the case of pakistan, who determines what is pakistan's national interest? is this the army and isi? there are no representatives of the people to determine the policy, whether it is terrorism or with respect to india and the united states. the question is whether it is constitutional within the pakistani law for either side to determine pakistan's foreign policy. if it is not, what does that make isi? and the pakistani people, if
they are looking for people responsible for the state in pakistan, where it has enemies within and without, if this is the result of the foreign policy, who is responsible? who is in control and whether it is constitutional? >> it is a question of decision making. who makes the decisions on policy. >> if i could try. politics a bore is a vacuum. -- abhors a vacuum. when a refuses' responsibility and refuses to direct the military one where the other, then the military steps in and starts making those decisions. in the case of operations in the
province, in 2008, there was a joint resolution. at the end of that, the army chief was made council. he was given full authority to control civilian and military action. that has not stopped to this day and even in the current joint session that talked about. when he says talk amongst yourselves and tell them what to do, they did not come back with a plan of action. i think there is a great opportunity to go back to civilian supremacy, to sustain it over. , time so that the government' , for that you need and ability to lead.
>> we have time for a couple more questions. because we could go on for a long time. i will introduce the ambassador, too. >> we have had some excellent questions. there are a couple of questions i would like to see covered. the plm have been critical of the military and the isi, asking them to make transparent its budget. he gave an interesting speech a few days ago in which he offered to turn it over to civilians. i do not understand the back story on the general's speech. i wondered if he could eliminate
it. the second question, we have talked a little bit about the isi's relationship with the press in context of the international press. in context of the domestic press, it has been alleged that the isi has it's a favorite outlets within the domestic press and is able to get its views. many time they are anti- american. is that true and if so, why does the military, what they see it in their interest to make the public against the united states? >> karen, would you like to start? >> on the last question, yes. i think it is generally assumed
that our people who work in pakistan and most foreign journalists and watches a their irdia -- watchers of ther media funded obvious that the carriage the -- found it obvious that they carry the message of the isi. i think the analysis that i ever heard, i agree it is a legitimate question, is that it allows them into presents itself as the savior of the country, as the protector of sovereignty, as
the keeper of the interests of all the pakistanis. the americans are seen as people who deserted pakistan after they did not need them anymore from the 1980's. the americans are seen as a country that is not india. they have great relations with india. they are seen as the country that wants to install a government in afghanistan that maybe is antithetical to pakistan's interests. more than the specifics, the senses that that kind of political and psychological chaos benefits the military. it allows them to present themselves as the stable
institution, the institution that is not going to sellout pakistan the way so many civilian politicians have. that is my interpretation. >> when you ask about the back story, i think he would be able to give the backboard. on a statement that was released which had a number of interesting sections including the restatement of the exact coalition support fund that was delivered to pakistan and how much delivered by the government to the army. that is not a new story. that is a story they came aboard -- out some years ago. even i have written about it. he told me there are only $300
million that had actually been delivered to the military. the rest had been kept by the army. as to why he said what he did, as i said, the army is conscious of public opinion. they are not leading from the front as much as they should. perhaps they're waiting for public opinion to form so they can act as was the case earlier. then the army was swift and taking advantage of that support. they do not want to lose that support. this is the reason why -- we do not want military aid, we want a as a whole for the people of pakistan. when a time when the political system in pakistan is still made -- stalemated, there is
not a political party waiting in the wings. accommodations, this is the majority that will emerge over time. >> a question in the back there. this will be the last question. >> in all of your research, does anyone have an idea of how much they get on the record? he talked about -- does anyone have any estimate of how much money is appropriated to them? >> does anybody know? it is like asking the budget of the cia. only a few people could answer that. i would like to thank our speakers today. [applause]